[kwlug-disc] UNIX in 1982

[Ronald Barnes]

Chris Frey wrote on 2024-10-18 17:02:

> Bloat

A loaded and arguable term...


> allows for faster delivery of an end product, but the product is 
> lower quality.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

And is debatable and mostly wrong.


> It's a shortcut, which everyone else must pay for every day.
So, developer time isn't a concern, and they should be mindful of your 
4GB RAM device?  So you can run the software they give away for free?



 > Running apache in a 32M system and still having a useful system left
 > over, compared to running apache now, which, on my current server
 > running 10 apache processes, the biggest is using 60MB all by itself.

Are the two Apaches otherwise equivalent or is there perhaps added 
functionality?  Because I don't feel like this comparison is fair.


 > A 90's website will download like greased lightening

Yeah, and it's ugly and barely useful.

Won't display properly on most screens (mobile devices are the majority, 
like it or not).

Won't support accessibility features.


 > Sadly, many developers think that if the speed is there, they might
 > as well use it all.

More like not fretting about too much extra download size, because their 
time is worth something too. And the build tools will do code pruning 
and tree shaking and lazy loading of modules and that's probably enough.


 > Then they have to go back and optimize things, like website download
 > speeds, which they would not have to do if they regularly tested
 > against .5Mbit, 1Mbit, 2Mbit, and 5Mbit download speeds.

Yes, sites should be tested against slower speeds and various input 
methods, screen sizes, etc.

In fact, modern web browsers support a whole bunch of tools for exactly 
that.


And someone out there is probably calling those support tools "bloat" 
right now.


One man's "bloat" is another's critical features.